Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AARON ALBERT GOODE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The Fourth Circuit affirmed Aaron Albert Goode’s sentence for conspiracy to distribute drugs and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The court held that North Carolina’s second-degree murder conviction qualifies categorically as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The court first determined that the Government forfeited its right to enforce Goode’s appeal waiver regarding the ACCA challenge. Although the plea agreement waived appellate rights, the Government initially litigated the merits of the ACCA claim by moving for summary affirmance under a plain error standard without raising the waiver. The court ruled that by choosing to address the merits first, the Government was foreclosed from later asserting the waiver, and the intervening decision in *United States v. Lubkin* did not excuse this forfeiture because it did not create a new legal argument previously unavailable to the Government. On the merits, applying the categorical approach and plain error review, the court concluded that North Carolina’s second-degree murder statute satisfies the ACCA’s “elements clause” (force clause). The court reasoned that the statute requires malice, which encompasses a level of extreme recklessness or wantonness so heedless of foreseeable consequences that it is functionally equivalent to a knowing state of mind. This mens rea requirement aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in *Borden v. United States* and the Fourth Circuit’s precedent in *United States v. Manley*, which established that crimes involving such extreme recklessness fall within the definition of violent felonies. Consequently, the court found no error in the district court’s classification of the prior conviction. The practical consequence is that Goode’s 360-month sentence remains in effect, and the Government’s motions to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver or for summary affirmance are denied as moot or forfeited. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.